Re: CHAT: Which world? Which culture?

Costentin Cornomorus sikyal:

> --- J Y S Czhang <czhang23@...> wrote:
>
> >     In our Polycarbonate Age - in which
> > everything from pre-natal healthcare
> > to gravesite maintenance is commodified and the
> > processes of life and nature
> > themselves are commodifiable (i.e.
> > bio-engineered genetics and modified foods),
> > socio-cultural (and coopted subcultural)
> > "lifestyles" are just another
> > "product-line."  Our very lives in the "Global
> > Village" are threatened by mass-mediafication
> > as well as "bio-commodifation."
>
> There doesn't seem to be much culture in this,
> after all. Culture is supposed to be a thing that
> goes on between people of a community. A kind of
> extended bonding. A practice of tradition. What
> we have on offer isn't that kind of culture, to
> be sure.
I'm not sure. There are plenty of things that still go on in community in
the US and Western Europe, and these bear the indelible stamp of culture.
If I invite a bunch of friends over, we'll drink pop, beer, and eat pizza,
watch a movie, and listen to rock. These are all culture-specific foods
and modes of entertainment, and even the venue itself ("inviting friends
over") is peculiar to this culture and its kin. That the pop, movies, and
music do not have great traditions behind them does not negate their
presence as elements of culture. Furthermore, the transience of such
objects is itself an aspect of culture. "America has no culture because we
throw everything away" is a meaningless statement; what you mean is,
"American culture is a culture of throwing things away."

You also are mixing prescriptive and descriptive ideas of culture. You say
"Culture is *supposed to be*", which is well and good, but does not
demonstrate that we don't have culture. I agree that our culture could
stand to be a lot more communal and sedentary, but the fact that our
culture is not these things does not make it not a culture. That's akin to
saying that Chinese is not a language because it has no cases.

> > Do we want a pre-packaged,
> > preservative-loaded Toss Salad MacDonaldland or
> > a potluck smorgsbord in which
> > everyone wants to join in is welcome and takes
> > active part?
Do we have a choice? Is the second one really any better? At a potluck,
inevitably, much of the food is bad . . . But so is McDonalds. The point,
I think, is that corporate v. communal is the wrong distinction: good v.
bad and healthy v. corrupting are more important.


Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu
http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/
http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/blog

Jesus asked them, "Who do you say that I am?"

And they answered, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground
of our being, the kerygma in which we find the ultimate meaning of our
interpersonal relationship."

And Jesus said, "What?"

Reply